September 25, 2007
Voter ID Case To Be Decided Before Election '08
Among the cases granted cert [PDF] by the Supreme Court today is a highly anticipated appeal concerning one of the strictest voter ID laws in the land.
Petitioners in the consolidated case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, are appealing the decisions of two lower courts to uphold the 2005 law, which requires would-be voters to present government-issued photo identification. The court will be asked to decide, probably in oral arguments early next year, whether the law infringes on Indianans' right to vote.
This case will settle a patchwork of conflicting laws popping up in the states, a welcome relief as the very act of voting becomes ever more complicated in certain places. But voting rights advocates opposing ID requirements could well find themselves wishing the case hadn't been brought just yet.
It's not because their argument isn't a good one. This case may rely more on evidence than pure constitutional interpretation (to the chagrin of Justice Antonin Scalia, no doubt). In theory, voter ID supporters say, there is nothing wrong with such restrictions if the purpose and intent is to prevent fraudulent voting. In practice, opponents counter, obtaining photo identification presents an unfair hurdle to minorities, rural communities and the poor.
Can they prove it?
The justices will either interpret the statistics showing larger percentages of poor citizens and minorities lack driver's licenses and passports as proof that the law unfairly restricts their right to vote, or they will demand evidence that the laws have already done so. With two lower courts having found no such evidence, the bar for reversal is not set low.
"There is not a single plaintiff who intends not to vote because of the new law -- that is, who would vote were it not for the law. There are plaintiffs who have photo IDs and so are not affected by the law at all and plaintiffs who have no photo IDs but have not said they would vote if they did and so who also are, as far as we can tell, unaffected by the law," concluded Judge Richard Posner, writing for the two-judge majority [PDF] in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Let's not beat around the bush," dissenting Judge Terence Evans shot back. "The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage Election Day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic."
It's not too difficult to guess which party appointed which judge. Election law experts frequently point out that the voter ID debate has startlingly little to do with facts. Part of the reason is voter ID laws are a fairly new phenomenon, arising in part because of the 2000 Florida disaster and in part as a reaction to rapidly changing voter demographics. Election fraud, the frequent rallying cry of Republicans, is designed to keep blacks and other minorities traditionally affiliated with Democrats off the rolls, Democrats contend. The mostly GOP effort to keep ex-cons from voting seems to bolster this suspicion.
Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio and South Dakota have statutes requiring or requesting photo ID. With the exception of maybe Hawaii and Ohio, these states have swelling black and Latino populations. Opponents of voter ID laws frequently cite evidence, much of it anecdotal, that Spanish-speaking, Native American and other minority voters are turned away or warned not to show up without photo ID. (Georgia's law is headed for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, but of course is bound to whatever the Supremes decide.)
The high court has long expressed an interest in voter disenfranchisement. The question here is, absent an abundance of evidence, whether they back the state's interest in preventing crime, or the interest of citizens lacking government-issued IDs to vote. Georgia's law, interestingly, provides free state-issued ID cards to registered voters unable to meet the requirements.
The court's conservative bloc is a bit sturdier these days, which may lead observers to guess that the Indiana law will be upheld. Then again, it's pretty clear that the justices are surveying the post-Bush v. Gore election law landscape and don't like what they see. In June of last year, the Supremes upheld most of a controversial Texas redistricting map. The part they didn't like? A district they determined was redrawn to keep Latinos off the rolls.
Posted at 4:25 PM
Posted to:
Campaigns, Constitution, Race, Supreme Court, WH 2008
Share via
